3 ms·

Once you accept that parallelizing is a legitimate strategy with a clear tradeoff, then the conversation moves towards if that tradeoff is legitimate. And here

Once you accept that parallelizing is a legitimate strategy with a clear tradeoff, then the conversation moves towards if that tradeoff is legitimate. And here I'm saying that's isolated demand for rigor to say that research that would, at the very least, help heal seriously ill people is less important than a random celebration which ups the meat consumption to the same levels, or inefficiencies in the meat supply chain or hundreds of other sources of waste. It's more salient, of course, but if the people commenting on this didn't feel the same desire to protect animal lives on other instances in the past few months, I kinda have to think this is less about their actual values and more about the article being written as a successful indignation pump.

danShumway 4y ago
> Once you accept that parallelizing is a legitimate strategy with a clear tradeoff That's the question. Is parallelizing animal testing and ramping up the number of animals used a legitimate strategy and does it have a clear tradeoff? No one in is arguing that animal rights only matter in lab testing. Rather, there are two arguments that can be made: - A) parallelization of animal testing is sloppy research that won't lead to better results. - B) the benefits of parallelization don't outweigh the moral cost of animal rights. Those are two separate arguments, and the parent comments were primarily arguing around A. B is orthogonal. That doesn't mean that B is an irrelevant argument or that there's no case to be made for animal welfare in testing, but it's a separate argument from A.